Figure 4—source data 2.
- ID
- ZDB-FIG-201209-41
- Publication
- Segebarth et al., 2020 - On the objectivity, reliability, and validity of deep learning enabled bioimage analyses
- Other Figures
-
- Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
- Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
- Figure 1—figure supplement 2.
- Figure 2—figure supplement 1.
- Figure 2—figure supplement 1.
- Figure 2—figure supplement 2.
- Figure 2—figure supplement 3.
- Figure 2—figure supplement 4.
- Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1.
- Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1.
- Figure 4—source data 2.
- Figure 5—figure supplement 1.
- Figure 5—figure supplement 1.
- Figure 5—figure supplement 2.
- Figure 5—figure supplement 3.
- Figure 5—figure supplement 4.
- Figure 5—figure supplement 5.
- All Figure Page
- Back to All Figure Page
(A–E) Single data points represent the calculated effect sizes for each pairwise comparison of all individual bioimage analyses for each DL-based strategy (gray: expert models, blue: consensus models, orange: consensus ensembles) in indicated hippocampal subregions. Three horizontal lines separate four significance intervals (n.s.: not significant, *: 0.05 ≥ p>0.01, **: 0.01 ≥ p>0.001, ***: p ≤ 0.001 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons). The quantity of analyses of each strategy that report the respective statistical result of the indicated pairwise comparison (effect, x-axis) at a level of p ≤ 0.05 are given below each pairwise comparison in the corresponding color coding. In total, we performed all analyses with: Nexpert models = 20, Nconsensus models = 36, Nconsensus ensembles = 9. Number of analyzed mice (N) for all analyzed subregions: NH = 7, NC- = 7, NC+ = 6. Numbers of analyzed images (n) are given for each analyzed subregion. Source files including source data and statistical data are available in Figure 4—source data 1. (A) Analyses of cFOS-positive nuclei in stratum pyramidale of CA1. n |